তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা ৷ بود o Their triumph on the occasion has been proportioned to the father's deep and sensible mortification, while the native community generally has received it as a dangerous encroachinent with reference to the Hindoo parent's right over his children, and a deep sensation has, in consequence, been created in the native population, from one end of the town to the other. With a view to open the question anew for further discussion, the father, we are given to understand, was advised by his friends to renew his application to the Supreme Court, but before this could possibly be effected, it appeats from the published statement of time brother of the child, that the Reverend Doctor administered the ordiuanre of 1}aptism to him, altimough an intimation was given to the Doctor, that further legal proceedings would be taken, and a request Inade to him to postpone the baptism of the child to the next day. We have been induced to allude to the subject from a conviction of it's importance, as affecting alike the interests of the community, and the sacred cause of religion. We yield to none, in our estimation of the transcendent talents of the Reverend I)octor, or in our regard for his personal character, but howsoever we may respect the man or admire his talents ; yet nothing would deter us, in out humble endeavours for the welfare of our countrymen, form raising our feeble but earnest voice against the arts of any person, which might, in our opinion, endanger, the public weal, or troiıı tiph »ldiug any measure which we may since ely believe conducive thereto. Let us examine then to what extent a Hindoo can legally exercise his parental right over his children. No one can deny, that the British nation is bound by the most solemn pledges to respect the religious and social opinions of the people of this country and to decide ail questions arising from those, according to the established usages of the land. The Act. 21st Geo, 3, d. 70. 28 specifically provides, that all chaldren of natives in this country snail be under the coutroit of their parents, until they are 16-years of age. The civil Law disqualities one under that age from acting for himself as incapable of exercising any freedom of thought in consequence of the iminature develo peinent of his faculties. The courts of law have practically recognized this principle, and we find,that the SupremeCourt , in its 'decision in the case of Nucoor Bvsak versus Gopal chund Set, laid it down as a rule that the l6th year should be considered as the age of It is evident, therefore, that in the discretion. same sense and for the same reason that a timinor is disqualified to manage his temporal affairs, he should be considered incompetent and perhaps to | a greater extent to hook after his spiritual con cerns. Hence a right is vested in the Hindoo parents of exercising a ontroni over their chil: dren and of rearing them up in the manner they
- think best. Although no lawyers our. 帶 * -
- 會 蟲劃鬱 ھے۔ill i=صہlھ ق م --ٹ - *
it is on this construction of the Law, that a little more than ten years ago those eminently learned Judges, Sir John Franks and Sir Edward Ryan ordered the body of Brojonauth Ghose who was produced ni court under exactly similar circunstances, to be restored to his naturai guardians. The case of Brojonauth Ghose, and the one which is the subject of the present discussion, are so analogous, and the decisions of the court in the two eases so strikingly different, that we are tempted to offer a detailed statement of them to our readers. Bro)onauth Ghose a youth of 14 years of age, son of Rommohun Ghose was a pupil in the Church missionary English school at Mirzapore (in Calcutta). IHe after a few months' attendance began to disclaim against Hindooistn and express himself favourably towards christianity. Ultimately he took shelter at Mr. Sandys’ the resident missionary at Mirzapore in whose house he was provided for. On the application of the father, a writ of Isabeas Corpus was issued by the acting Chief Justice against Kristno Mohun Bannerjee calling upon him to produce the body of Brojonauth Ghose. An affidavit in answer to the writ was returned, declaring that the body was not in the custody of Kristnomohun. The boy, however, of his own free will, appeared at court, where he was ordered to be delivered up to the custody of his father on the ground, that he was not of age, altho he expressed before the court his unwillinguess to accompany his father". Mu. Justick Franks —The first question for the consideration of the Court is one of age. The parent on whose behalf the present application is made, states that the boy is four. teen or thereabouts. To words of ordinary use we are bound to give an ordinary interpretation; therefore, I take it that in coinmon parlance the boy is fourteen, he may be a little under or a little over With referculee to the statute cited by Mr. Clarke, it is the duty of the ("ourt to iodk to the rigs,t a father has over his chill as recognized by law. The Court in bound to observe that statute, adol - long as I have the honour to "it here, ti, Ulourt will respect it tıs much •ıs a:ıy of h•r J:ıv · , fo, şt ın inw duty to treat the natives with as in Ich rosper t as the law authorizes me to observe. It has been observed, that a fath,” has no inore authority in this country over his child that; he has at home. Mr. Clai ke bas stated the law correctly to be in this 'courtry that the parent has the guardianship of the child until he is of 16. In the case of Rex v. H)elane. when the child was a female and of eighteen years, Lord Mansfield decided, that the party should be discharged on being asked where he wished to go. But in that case the party was at a more advanced age than the boy now before the Court. In 1ny opinion he has come here constructively in the possession of the person to whom the writ was directed, and
